NEWMARKET — A federal jury trial is set to begin in February of next year between a mobile home park and a tenant's girlfriend's service dog.

Michael Scribner, owner and occupant of a home at 138 Dartmouth Circle, lot 6C, at Sleepy Hollow Mobile Home Park, had his girlfriend Judy DeMerchant living in the home in 2010 and 2011 when he says DeMerchant adopted a Chihuahua from the humane society to be her service dog.

DeMerchant is deaf and has anxiety.

According to court documents, her physician recommended she buy the Chihuahua to help her deal with her disorder and to alert her when visitors arrive and with “other occurrences of which she may be unaware.”

The mobile home park, however, does not allow residents to have dogs, cats, or “farm-type animals.”

Court documents show the mobile home park told Scribner and DeMerchant that the dog was not allowed to live at the park. The park's employees, Bruce Talbot and H. William Gardner, received a number of complaints from neighbors who said the dog barks “uncontrollably” and has even bitten a resident.

Scribner responded that the dog should be allowed to stay because DeMerchant is a person with disabilities, “and that the dog assisted her in dealing with her disabilities.”

Scribner filed a discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), who determined that reasonable cause existed to believe that the mobile home park was violating the Fair Housing Act.

Court documents state the United States asked the court to enjoin the defendants from discriminating against people with disabilities in any aspect of the park.

The mobile home park employees, however, said DeMerchant was never even a resident of the park, but just lived with Scribner.

They state she never applied for approval of residence, which is required by park rules.

Talbot and Gardner say, according to court documents, that they asked DeMerchant for proof of the Chihuahua's training and a certification that he was, in fact, a service dog.

They needed this in order to make an exception to allow her to keep the dog, “thus indicating a willingness to consider reasonable accommodation.”

“However, because the dog, 'Benny,' was plainly not a service dog and was plainly an untrained nuisance whose barking and aggressive behavior was the source of complaints from other residents, defendants did not consent to Benny's continued residence at the park,” court documents read.

Talbot and Gardner said Scribner and DeMerchant failed to demonstrate that this dog in particular was the only “appropriate 'support animal.'”

The Chihuahua was described by the next-door neighbor as a “barking machine” in July 2012.

Just ten months before that description was given, Talbot and Gardner say they gave Scribner an eviction notice. A complaint from HUD came within two weeks.

Talbot and Gardner told HUD they would work with DeMerchant if she applied for residency and proved the Chihuahua was a service animal.

“Defendants' enforcement of its policy to allow emotional support animals upon request, if necessary for medical or mental health of a resident, but only when the animal in question does not unreasonably interfere with the rights of other tenants to peaceful enjoyment of their premises, does not unreasonably burden the ability of handicapped residents to affirmatively enhance their quality of life by ameliorating the effects of their disabilities; said policy therefore does not fail to make reasonable accommodation for handicapped individuals and does not violate the Fair Housing Act or other federal or state law,” they said in court documents.

They added that since the “controversy” began, DeMerchant has voluntarily removed herself from the residence.

Her boyfriend said she is now living with her parents in Saugus, Mass.

“ ... nonetheless, the dog Benny does not live with Ms. DeMerchant but continues to reside with Mr. Scribner at his residence…,” court documents read, in which Talbot and Gardner say proves the Chihuahua is not providing a service or any support to DeMerchant.

“Ms. DeMerchant has not lived in the park for more than a year, while Benny has continued to reside, in violation of park rules, with Mr. Scribner.”

Scribner told Foster's the park is still threatening to evict him for keeping the dog, but that he was unable to get rid of the dog because DeMerchant was unable to bring it with her to her parents' house.

He said his trailer is for sale “because of the discrimination shown to (DeMerchant).”

Expert witness disclosures will be made by both parties by July 1, with final supplementation to occur by the end of October.

If the two parties cannot agree on a settlement, Scribner said the case will go to federal court.